My simple arithmetic calculations in my fancy schmancy Excel chart are now up-to-date. I've even updated the media estimates (see the chart in the sidebar) and make note of the following:

--28,841,798 votes have been cast so far
--Obama is ahead by 419,259 votes

--Obama has won 13,971,856 votes
--Clinton has won 13,552,597 votes

--Obama has won 48.44% of the votes
--Clinton has won 46.99% of the votes

--Obama has won in 29 states
--Clinton has won in 15 states

--Obama has approximately 1500 convention delegates (not counting superdelegates)
--Clinton has approximately 1350 convention delegates (not counting superdelegates)

--All projections that include superdelegates estimate Obama's delegate count to be higher than Clinton's
--The difference between their delegate counts ranges from 125 to 200

--If the Democrat primaries and caucuses were winner-take-all like most Republicans', Clinton would have 1430 delegates to Obama's 1261 and the nomination would still be undecided by less than 200 delegates.

Does it amuse anyone besides me that the Democrats' nomination is in exactly the same situation as the Gore vs. Bush and Nixon vs. Kennedy elections, just in the nomination phase instead of the election? Consider that in 1960, Nixon carried 26 states to Kennedy's 22 . . . but lost the election. Kennedy won the popular vote by only two tenths of one percent with 112,827 votes out of 68,329,141. He had gamed it so well and cleverly that he also had 84 more electoral votes. People say it now and then but it's amazing to realize that a very few votes really can alter the course of history.

No matter how you cut it, this is a close (and apparently endless) nomination. I wish there were a knight (a/k/a statesman) who could ride in on a steed and save us from the devisiveness and anger that will almost certainly ensue if/when one of them wins the nomination. Steeds and Knights seem few and hard to find these days, don't they?

Labels: 2008 election, numbers, reflections

I spent the last two hours rearranging the room that houses my computer, knitting, crocheting and beading. Which suggests the room should be the largest in the house. But it's not. Thus the need to reconsider how things are arranged. I don't want one corner apiece because that's much too static and ugly. What had happened was that piles of quickly-placed things had gotten way way out of hand - too disorganized and looked like a complete mess. I had to step around piles of yarn and pass boxes of beads just to get to the computer. Oh, okay, maybe not quite that bad but one of the beauties of blog writing is that one can willynilly use hyperbole to make things sound a little more amusing. Anyway, things are more or less under control now and the room looks less like a garage but I'm still not completely happy with it. What I need is a personal carpenter to build me just perfect shelf units for each enterprise. Any applications? Heh.

Labels: about me, crafts, interior design

I'm as bad about posting regularly, sometimes, as anyone else, but I feel downright lost and sad when bloggers I like to read haven't posted recently. I worry whether they're healthy or having financial troubles or are just bored. It's silly, I know, but it's how I feel.

Labels: blogs (others'), writing

I'm getting pretty good at this, I must say. My predictions for the bottom three were exactly correct as well as for who was being eliminated. I'm tied for 4th place in a pool with 144 participants, too, how about that?! Sadly, my reward is neither fame nor fortune but only boasting privileges.

Labels: a.i., a.i.7, about me, tv

Much better energy this week, maybe because the singers felt less overwhelmed than having to sing Beatles' well-revered songs. Some song choices were weird; some were amazing. And, listen, are they as goofy as they sound in interviews? Can't be, can they?? Syesha's baby crying thing was funny, once, but please I don't want to hear it ever again. And why do we have to know that Carly ran to the bathroom before singing? Much too much information. (There's a rumor that she's pregnant (angry tatooted people having babies - ick) but that's a different story.) And how about that Randy and Simon are agreeing on many of the performances instead of sniping at each other?

David Cook - 1 - finally a song that didn't start quiet and build to a screeching crescendo! this was great and an absolutely fantastic performance; David hits notes so square-on and full-voice that it's a real pleasure to listen to him
Michael Johns - 2 - super cover of "we are the champions" a major crowd (and me) pleaser and which he did very nicely, my usual objections to his voice notwithstanding
Syesha Mercado - 3 - over-wrought for my taste but she sounded terrific
Brooke White - 4 - booorrrriinnnggg and way too much of the same old same old (a commenter on the TV Guide blog suggests that Brooke and Jason could tour together which is cute except the audience would need lots of caffeine)
Carly Smithson - 5 - yelling angry-face-making smug tattoo lady . . . is all I can say
David Archuleta - 6 - if he doesn't stop singing "meaningful" songs he's going to bore me (and lots of his fan base) to death; Simon was almost certainly correct about the song not having been his choice; rumor has it that Daddy Archuleta is a controlling and dominating guy who's almost certainly trying to game this thing (hey, maybe he advised Kristi, too)
Jason Castro - 7 - he acknowledged he could have spent more time practicing and his playing shouldn't've been so sloppy but, uh, if you don't practice hard for gazillions of people watching Idol, who the H do you practice for??; anyway, despsite his awesome voice this really was pretty bad or, as Simon put it, like someone singing in the subway; ugh
Ramiele Malubay - 8 - cute personality but such a boring singer she makes Brooke seem exciting
Kristi Lee Cook - 9 - so calculating that I could barely listen even though I love the song and don't mind her normally
Chikeze Eze - 10 - slow, often off-key, boring; love him but it wasn't at all good

My prediction is that the bottom three (if they announce them) will be Jason, Kristi and Chikeze. Rami should be in that group but I doubt that her fans can part with her cuteness yet; she's gotta go soon, though, cuz she's either too young or just doesn't have that je ne sais quoi that's so hard to identify. Kristi, also cute and apparently really nice, is too boring to last much longer and last night's choice was just way too manipulative for which the consequence should be her banishment. The consequence for Jason's sleepwalking should be to scare him into cutting the hair and shaping up his singing though I suspect he'd languish his way out of feeling alarm. In the end, and although I like him, if anyone is eliminated tonight, I think it will be Chikeze because sometimes he's terrific (two weeks ago) but sometimes he's pretty awful (last night). We'll just have to wait and see. . . .

Labels: a.i., a.i.7, tv

Priscilla Presley will dance in public again. Steve Guttenberg will and cheer the world on for another week. Yes, they both survived the first week's dual cut. Monica Seles and Penn, however, did not. Since someone had to go, it was probably appropriate that they were the ones, although it's definitely too bad since they were lots of fun. (Monica didn't grunt even once, by the way.) I still don't understand how Kristi Yamaguchi is okay for the show since she was a multi-time Olympics ice-skating winner; that's way too much like dancing and therefore way too much like having a professional dancer in the competition. She's terrific but duh. Too soon to tell for sure but I think the voters will agree with me about Kristi despite (or because of) her skill and they'll hang onto Marlee Matlin and Priscilla Presley as long as they can but Mario or Shannon Elizabeth will win in the end.

Labels: dwts, tv

When I began blogging in 2004, part of my delight in exploring hundreds if not thousands of blogs was discovering unexpectedly smart, witty, and outside-the-box verbal acuity in many people all around the country as they wrote about many things, particularly the impending election. Now it is four years later and another election is in the offing. This primary season, it seems to me, the blogging has had a tone significantly different and lacking in essential insightfulness. Plus, there's a snippiness and nastiness that I didn't see very much in 2004 despite it being such a hotly emotional contest. There was more out-and-out anger then, but it was straightforward. Writers either liked or loathed Bush and either tolerated or dismissed Kerry.

There's no denying that this primary season is unusual. There are two Democratic candidates with similar viewpoints on many things but whose governing approaches would be quite different from each other because their fundamental goals are so different. And neither candidate is someone to whom one would obviously give allegiance.

But what is surprising me is that it is more and more evident that some bloggers have problems with Obama's race and/or Clinton's gender. Just barely under the surface is discomfort and unease with one or both candidates, although not particularly with either one's policies or philosophies since they hardly ever talk about them, but with them, personally, with their backgrounds or friends or outlook. No matter how hard the writers construct paragraphs full of clever words, what it comes down to is encasing their distaste for Obama and/or Hillary in rhetoric that sounds like patronizing adults talking about obstreperous children. It's weird. And it's disappointing.

Labels: 2008 election, blogs (others'), writing

Nice photo.

Labels: celebrations, gwb, holidays

It's been sunny and very pleasant for two straight days here in the Northeast, just like the storybooks say it is on Easter weekend if not how it always is. But how lovely that this nice gentle weather came on Easter. It's almost as if Spring really is here! Most welcome it is, too, after a rainy, cold winter.

I wish the best of Spring and Easter to all rare readers who happen to stop by and hope hope you have a grand day.

Labels: holidays, weather

Recently the Democratic candidates have further muddied the waters as far as my knowing whom to support. Trustworthiness is hardly Clinton's strongest suit but her use of a decade-old video clip with a young girl who now, years later, actively supports Obama means that she isn't even paying close attention. Perhaps it's just that her staff isn't doing their work very well. But here's the thing: if they aren't doing their work well during the campaign, how would they do if she got elected? Also, in February, she stated unequivocally that Michigan's votes should be discounted because of the DNC's sanctions; now she says they must be counted. This is one more example of how impossible it is to get or keep a fix on what she actually thinks or believes. But maybe that's good for a president who has to deal with a wild and crazy world full of different constituents, allies and enemies? I really don't know my answer.

As for Obama, his speech last Monday was inarguably rousing and well-worded (having Ted Sorenson among his writers can only benefit his sound bites). He accomplished what I assume he set out to do: diffuse fury about his minister's hostile rantings and further elucidate his stated agenda of bringing the country together. It was smart to talk head-on about racist behavior and verbiage in his determination to change the world. He pulls anger and racism out of the emotional shadows and I admire his tactics as well as his goal. I think he has a real chance to succeed in this because of his calm personality and his evident good will. He may indeed be a major force for change for the better in this society. But does that mean he'd be a good president? I really don't know my answer.

One reason I don't know my answer is that my trust in him has been damaged. On Friday before the famous speech, a few days after the rancid speeches were released, he said in an interview with Anderson Cooper that he'd never personally heard the remarks. Cooper looked disbelieving and pursued it for a while but Obama insisted he hadn't known about the remarks and rantings until the tapes were released. Then on Monday he acknowledged he *had* heard the remarks previously. In other words, Friday's denials were prevarications. As in, false. As in, he not only knew but had already been concerned about them. As in, how can we trust what he says now? I mean, it's hardly news that trust is delicate or that politicians are untrustworthy. Or that politicians will say and do pretty much whatever they feel they need to say to get elected. But, at least as far as I know, Obama has so far been uniquely trustworthy and different from "regular" candidates. But when he said he wasn't in the pew he was either outright lying or he was being very very precise because he was actually in the back of the church. Is he just another politician as usual, appealing though he may be? I really don't know my answer.

Labels: 2008 election, politics, reflections

Several dry cleaners near my home open early on Saturday but only one has same-day cleaning. I work 70 miles from home and none are open late on weekdays so this effectively means that there is only one dry cleaner available for me unless I can do without something for a week. I personally know dry cleaners near Lawrence, Kansas and Damascus, Maryland that are open early and late and have drive-up services and are 'green'. I'm so jealous and I feel deprived.

Labels: reflections

People are saying "Happy Good Friday" all over the place today. Sounds weird. I mean, I know it's sort of a holiday - the parking lot at my train station was only half full (or half empty, depending on your point of view) - but "happy"? If one considers what it's commemorating it's not exactly happy. Perhaps religious and secular don't mix smoothly.

Labels: holidays, reflections

I keep thinking about the hostility that black liberation theologists apparently want to shout from their pulpits. And a rare reader provided a quotation from Booker T. Washington that is interesting partly because it was not written this week.

And I want to say that remembering the injustices of history so as to keep the anger stoked is very different from remembering them so as to avoid repeating them and to improve the future.

Labels: 2008 election, reflections

How Michael Johns made it to the top 10 after messing up lyrics and not hitting notes is beyond me but I guess cuteness outweighs singing sometimes. The voters wanted to see him on the tour, which makes some sense. They want to see Carly, too, but apparently I'm not the only one in the audience who hates her self-appointedness and her angry look and her entitledness. Not to mention the tattoos. I doubt she'll make it as far as she thinks she will.

Amanda bit the dust last night, and none too soon. She inflicted her rotten attitude and unintelligible singing on us for way too long. Now she can go back to her flatbed trucks and beer joints where, she says, she'll be much happier. Undoubtedly she'll make lots of money, too, and more power to her. As long as it's out of my hearing.

Labels: a.i., a.i.7, tv

First let me say that I know Idol is a marketing goldmine but the product placement stuff and endless reminders about iTunes and Coke and Apple are getting tedious and very old. My "grades" are in parentheses.

As for last night's revisit to the Beatles songbook, it was woeful and even occasionally awful. On the other hand, Syesha had seemed to be slipping into guaranteed oblivion and she redeemed herself in spades. But how did The Eleven manage to pick almost entirely uninteresting songs and arrangements? I know they have to squeeze their performances into 90 seconds or so but still. Anyway, I thought David Cook and Syesha were amazing; all the rest were pretty bad for me. And when are the contestants going to learn that they shouldn't sass the judges? Who do they think is making their success?? Do they really think they can go from here to 50-year careers without any advice or modifications? Sheesh.

David Cook - 1 - not as good as last week but still really awesome; he's inventive and his voice is just getting better and better; Paula said (lucidly!?) that he's ready to make records and I totally agree; if they let sappy Archuleta win instead of Cook, they'd be foolish because they could have another success like Underwood
Syesha Mercado - 2 - fantastic version of Yesterday; made it seem like she really belonged there; don't know if it was too quiet and sophisticated for the Idol voters but I loved it
David Archuleta - 3 - he's sweet and has a powerful voice but he's too young and the breathy hiss is driving me nuts; I'm completely over him and think/hope he'll be the surprise elmin at some point despite his good voice; he'll have a good career anyway although shouldn't he finish school first being 16 and all
Brooke White - 4 - what was she thinking? ridiculous silly rendition of Here comes the sun, complete with sunny yellow dress; it seemed like a 4-year-old doing the itsy bitsy spider complete with hand gestures when the sun comes out; she's awesome so she's not in any trouble yet but she'd better never such nonsense again
Kristy Lee Cook - 5 - her voice is pretty nice so I hope she hangs around a bit longer and I love her gumption; unfortunately I think the judges are sick of her
Jason Castro - 6 - not as good as that phenomenal Hallelujah but almost nothing would be; I agreed with Simon that Michelle sounded rickyticky; please can't someone convince him to ditch the dreds and grow up just a little? how can he have a career if he's scared of people?
Carly Smithson - 7 - she rubs me totally the wrong way between the self-indulgent whining ("we feel like broken blackbirds who've been freed"? give me a break!) and her frowning and tattoos; the maternity top (no, I don't think it really was) was hideous
Chikeze Eze - 8 - silly although still better than his first week; I didn't get the harmonica at all; he seems like a great guy but I'm not sure what he's doing here
Ramiele Malubay - 9 - she's out of her element except when she's singing; she's babyish about friends and being soothed but she sounds terrific when she sings despite pretty icky songs and arrangements
Michael Johns - 10 - I fear he's past his sell-by date; he looks lovely and has a nice voice but always seems out of sorts; last night he hit a some wrong notes really loudly which is tons worse than forgetting lyrics (for which they excoriated David A.); I might give Michael another week to see if he can pull it together but he's not long for the competition
Amanda - 11 - every song sounds like every other song and it's incredibly annoying not to make out any words; and and her attitude is dreadful - why stay if she hates it so much? and her sassy rebuttal about not being willing to do ballads was stupid, aside from rude, because few will go to shows where someone does the growls loudly and abrasively over and over again ad infinitum; it's time for her to be eliminated

My prediction is that the bottom three will be Amanda, Michael and Kristy and that Michael will be eliminated.

Labels: a.i., a.i.7, reflections, tv

I know there are racists in this country. I know that a subtle symptom of deep-seated racism is thinking the other guy is racist but oneself is not. What I did not know very thoroughly, nor mentally prepare for, is the just-developing second stage reaction as Obama begins to establish into a secure lead ahead of Mrs.C.

What I mean is that seemingly intelligent and balanced people are starting to topple over all kinds of unexpected (to me) edges. I won't repeat the thoughts and statements I've been reading today. It would be as pointless and offensive as the endless airings of Rev. Wright's mostly ghastly diatribes.

The thing is, if there were no germs of anything at all true in wild remarks like Wright's, there would be no reason to feel disturbed.

Labels: 2008 election, people, politics, reflections

Simply Audiobooks is a terrific idea. Kind of Netflix* for books but much more expensive and tons less reliable. It takes almost a week to get a book to or from them, thus taking ten days or more of a month right there. And although they list lots of books, they must have few of each title including the not-best-sellers I usually like, so you can have ten or more books in your queue and still have none available to be shipped. They're very nice when you call or write to ask questions or complain, but it just doesn't quite make the grade. Makes one appreciate Netflix all the more.

*According to Wikipedia, Netflix was founded in 1997 by Marc Randolph and Reed Hastings in Los Gatos, California.

Labels: books, confusion, movies

If any rare readers would like to share, I'd be curious to know what applications you use for photo storing and photo sharing. I've been using Picasa, Flickr and Picasa Web Albums but I'm not entirely happy with any of them. I tried SmugMug but it was code-heavy and required much to much back and forth to do simple things. I tried MyPhotoAlbum but it doesn't include much customization. Phanfare has a nifty interface but it's expensive and limited.

Picasa for storing is easy to use but bases everything on a timeline. I just don't want to organize everything on when a photo was taken. Plus, there's absolutely no way to change the timeline structure.

Flickr for sharing is easy to use and has collections as well as 'sets' which is very nice. Its batch operations are cool, too. But it requires visitors to register, which many don't like, and it's clunky in a way that's hard to verbalize but annoying as heck.

Ofoto or whatever Kodak is called these days, and Snapfish, are easy to use but again require registration and have so many ads and 'great offers!' that they make me nuts. No collections, either.

Picasa Web Albums is very easy to use but only allows one layer - no collections such as Vacations > Alaska, New Zealand. . . . They don't require registration (good) but the pictures must be one (too large) size (bad). And did I mention they don't have collections?

On a different note, fxfoto is an awesome - and free! - photo editing application for those who don't want to go the hundreds of dollar Photoshop route. Check it out! (Thanks, Cnet!)

Any suggestions will be welcome and most appreciated.

Labels: about me, family, photos

David Cook and Brooke White for the finals!! Hey, maybe there'll be a tie since they're both fantastic but so different.

Meanwhile, I have to eat any words I wrote that were negative about Chikezie. His enthusiasm and utter delight in being there are worth the price of admission by itself. He's a breath of clear and fresh air! (But someone tell Ryan to stop patting him on the head. He's not a pet.) And while they're at it, someone tell everyone that bickering with Simon is getting very very old. Simon is one of the judges, for one thing, one of the creators of the series for another, one of the producers of whoever wins, for another, and deserves his time speaking as much as Paula or Randy who tend to say the same thing to everyone, most of all. Not cute any more (if it ever was).

It seems David A. has a stage father who's been known to swat the kid for losing. Goodness gracious, can't that breed be bred out of humankind?? That explains why he always looks a little scared and edgy. If a kid isn't having a blast then he shouldn't do it, whatever it is, that's my thinking. Other than him, I can't wait til Carly self-promotes herself out of the competition; I'm betting her angry scowl combined with her visible sense of entitlement will probably earn her this season's 'surprise' boot. (Out with her, I say, out with her!) Jason, Kristy, Ramiele, Michael, Amanda and Syesha are charming (except for Amanda who has an attitude nasty enough to scratch steel). They're nice to listen to but they're not "it" people. So the headliners will be David Cook and Brooke White, I'm willing to bet.

Labels: a.i., a.i.7, tv

Why does Mrs NY Gov keep standing beside her hubris-ridden, felony-committing, falsehood-uttering, probably narcissistic husband when he makes his announcements? She looks as if she hasn't slept in days and she looks absolutely miserable. It certainly allows him to retain a semblance of family pride and normalcy but it seems nutty to me. Is there any way shape or form in which it helps her or her children, for example?

Please please please tell me this isn't a remnant of the "what did I do to make you do this to me?" syndrome to which many women, bright and smart having nothing to do with it, fall prey. We are raised to be the helpmates and "good girls" who are the "power behind the throne" and logically, therefore, hold the real reins to everything. Thus if we are beaten or abused or psychologically trampled, it is essentially our fault and therefore it us up to us to figure a way out of the maze (since it is, at least partially, of our own making, following the logic mentioned above). I thought perhaps women had moved beyond this but Mrs. NY Gov is in her late forties so maybe it is where she is coming from. But one would hope that all her degrees and professional success would have helped to disabuse (pun intended) her of that collectively unconscious habit. Or have we not progressed fifty years since fifty years ago?

Labels: family, people, reflections, women

As something of a tv junkie, I had to watch Canterbury's Tales Law. Julianna Margulies is the lead and much tougher and more complex than she was in E.R. days. I quite liked it, to my surprise. There were several sub-threads and a fair amount of barking people, but the overlying plot was somewhat interesting and I get the feeling it's a character-driving show where it doesn't much matter what happens, just that you get to see those people again. It's directed by Mike Figgis (Miss Julie, Leaving Las Vegas, The Browning Version, Liebestraum, . . .). Definitely worth some more watching.

Labels: celebrities, tv, writing

This week upset the apple cart big time. The seemingly invincable David A. made odd remarks about the Beatles and sang pretty badly. Amanda was still interesting but I skipped through because I don't really like to listen to her. Ditto a few of the others. Kristy Lee Cook gets props for trying hard even if the experiment failed. Meanwhile, these four had unusual and strong performances all of which would be buyable and/or listenable.

David Cook - slow to warm up but the rest was good and the end was fantastic
Brooke White - a little too folksy and emotional for me but she's very good
Carly Smithson - she was very good but I wish she'd ditch the angry brows
Chikezie Eze - believe it or not he was terrifically energetic and creative

Bottom 3 - and they were really pretty bad -

Syesha Mercado - screachy and boring
David Hernandez - off key and embarrassing to watch
Michael Johns - monotonous as heck; good looks only go so far

I think David Cook won the night and David Hernandez is going home.

Labels: a.i., a.i.7, reflections, tv

I was wondering who would be the first page one person to object to Geraldine Ferraro's patently ridiculous comments. I'm glad it was the candidate himself. Ferraro - the beneficiary of soft treatment at the hands of a wary media when she ran for Vice President - has nerve to say what she said and I'm mighty glad someone reacted straightforwardly. Neither Clinton nor Obama are getting special treatment, if you ask me, since both are being ridiculed and excoriated, at different points in time. Can Ferraro seriously think that the media is going easier on the black man than they do on the white Clinton woman? Get real. The media is a hungry shark from whose teeth no one escapes unshredded.

Labels: 2008 election, people, politics, ridiculousness

Today there are 33 delegates up for grabs for the democratic party nomination. Common wisdom has it that they're mainly going to be Obama's. Hillary's conclusion seems to be that she deserves to be the democratic nominee and therefore it doesn't matter. I have to say that if McCain picks a running mate who's strong and effective, I think he'll win, given the fuss and nonsense about both HRC and BHO. The democrats really do seem to have a death wish, don't they?

Labels: 2008 election, politics, reflections

Before this week's singing begins, I want to go on record with this. TV Guide's blog published their results from readers' reactions as to who will win Idol. Realizing that at this point it's meaningless since it doesn't end until May, therefore it's a somewhat pointless exercise, but it amuses me. Anyway, in the left column are my predictions a/k/a preferences as stated last week and in the right column are TV Guide's. Cool, huh?!

The world and I are in agreement for top 5 places and last. Wow. Never happens. Pretty much up in the air how the six in the middle get eliminated but I'd bet on them all going. And I'd like to go on record as saying that I think David A. will become booorrrriiinngg and Jason Castro will win the whole thing - if he'll ditch the dreds. Otherwise, it'll be David Cook.

Labels: a.i., a.i.7, tv

Pride does in fact goeth before nearly all falls. Eliot Spitzer, the soon-to-be-former governor of New York, built his career and reputation - and pretty much won the governorship - by prosecuting what he said were evil wrongdoings among businessmen and prostitutes. He sounded like a zealot and pursed his lips like a religious convert. Yet apparently all the while he was conducting business with prostitutes himself. Huh, you say? What, you ask?? One wants to assume the news is wrong but Spitzer himself announced this all a few minutes ago and said he will resign.

How can anyone expect to hide something like this? How could Spitzer have been so astonishly hypocritical? One is reminded of Gary Hart insisting he had not had any doings with call girls and telling the press to follow him everywhere if they didn't believe him . . . and then being appalled when they showed photos of him with, er, call girls.

We all do wrong or illegal things - few, if any, are immune from human nature, after all. But if you choose to run for a public office, you have to expect - no, you have to know that all will eventually be found out. Either don't run or, up front, acknowledge the transgressions with complete assurance that they are finished. One simply cannot expect to hide, not in the age of 24-hour news. Unless, that is, you are Bill or Hillary, both of whom are apparently made of a different cloth that allows all manner of transgression to be (a) committed, (b) hidden, (c) admitted and (d) ignored / gotten away with.

I feel very bad for Spitzer's wife and children but there is almost no derision too strong for someone so loudly and publicly self-righteous whose feet are as clay-filled as all of ours.

Labels: anger, modern culture, people

In case some rare reader doesn't know what problems some of us have with the Clintons, why we wish they'd just stop, do something other than run for public office and be in the front lines of news both hard and soft, and leave America and us alone, read this, all of it. Not only does it explain the problems but it points out what they could have done differently, to spare us the psychodrama that is their (and, as a result, our) lives.

Labels: 2008 election, people, politics, writing

Whom do you think McCain will choose for v.p.? I have friends who've said if he picks Bloomberg, the November race will be theirs. On the other hand, since Bloomberg is an independent at present, he may run with Obama. That would sure be interesting. He's a nanny in successful businessman's clothing but he'd make a heckuva good v.p.

Predictions, anyone?

Labels: 2008 election, people, politics

Used to mean something a bit different, that phrase "states' rights" but I guess every state is flexing its muscles this year in the democratic nomination process. Since they're using something similar to electoral college proportionality, though, it's maybe not as one-man-one-vote as it should be. Then again, no one is asking me.

We're down to 12 more contests before the convention. Unless it's 14 because two are re-held. The poetic twist of the dems having to argue about whether votes were fairly or unfairly won, only one president and eight years after what many say was a 'stolen' election, is pretty amusing, isn't it? Ted Olson, the lawyer who argued Bush's case at the Supreme Court, mentioned somewhere that I saw that he has a set of good papers the dems could use for precedents, if they'd like. Heh.

Mississippi on Tuesday and then we get endless and entirely meaningless chatter which will be hard to take for the following six weeks until Pennsylvania's primary.

Labels: 2008 election, politics

Wyoming's caucuses are today. Hillary's dismissing it as unimportant since it's only a few delegates - 12 today plus 6 superdelegates. Obama is expected to win there so of *course* she says they're unimportant. Besides, every vote counts in this country. . . . or does it??

If they permit the Michigan votes to stand, it will be a travesty of Democracy. Edwards and Obama agreed to abide by the party's edict and took their names off the ballot. Hillary did her usual fly-by of the rules and somehow got away with it - why didn't they just take her name off the ballot? or put Obama's and Edwards' on also?? Where does she get the audacity to suggest that the resulting delegate count is valid, in any way? Or shall all the "other" votes go to Obama? That would give him a hefty amount of delegates and wouldn't narrow the difference enough anyway, and it would be wrong. It's entirely possible many of those who voted for "other" meant to write Abe Lincoln's name in or anyone.

Anyway, another day another state. Will it ever end?

Labels: 2008 election, politics

Interesting ruling in California but troubling for all kinds of reasons. If this is legitimate, where have they been for the last fifty years? If it's just a matter of retaliation or seeking school tax moneys, why didn't they approach the ruling more publicly and with community discussions? Seems especially odd given that it's in California, the epicenter of personal freedom. I hope that perhaps one of my homeschooling blog friends will add a note of rationality and explanation.

Labels: california, confusion, schooling

The always wonderful, fantastic, erudite, succinct, clever, poetic, and observant Seablogger wrote what he dubbed a sermon the other day as a result of experience fighting his current illness.

If you are healthy, but sluggish and heavy, move your butt until you downsize it. If you are ill, that’s no excuse. When my lung was collapsed, I could feel that it was no longer possible for me to bicycle to the beach, but I didn’t take the elevator to my third floor apartment. I kept climbing the stairs because I could, even if it left me winded for a moment. Do all you can, and learn to tell the difference between mental and physical resistance. If you brain says I don’t wanna, ignore it. If your body says, I can’t, yield.

Exercise every day. It doesn’t matter what you do. Walk, jog, weight-lift, skate, cycle, swim. Stretching is good too. You don’t have to take up yoga, like some of the freaky people I used to see out on the beach at dawn. But keep limber. Don’t let the parts stiffen up.

Why? Here’s another basic truth. Exercise probably won’t lengthen your life. If you lose a roll of the genetic dice, disease will happen. But if you exercise, even when you are ill, you will be strong enough to lead a normal life almost to the end, and believe me, that beats shuttling to the hospital. You will also be more alert, you will sleep better, you will feel better than if you sit in front of the computer all the time.

This is terrific advice. The trick is to heed it.

Labels: blogs (others'), friends, writing

The final 12 were announced tonight. I think everyone including me thought David Archuleta had it all sewed up from the get-go but this week there were at least two who made many of us realize he has some stiff competition. Jason's "Hallelujah" was fantastic - so well sung and so moving that Simon even said he liked it as much or better than the original (really?!). David Cook sang an original and well-phrased version of a "Hello" which is horribly bland in the original and was wonderful in his hands, er voice. They're both much more interesting than David A. who is adorable and has a stupendous voice but is awfully young and, I'm afraid, oh-so-profound in that young/innocent way. It would be much more exciting to have a complex singer win.

The women, admittedly less exciting than the men this year as everyone has been pointing out, have a couple of potential super dupers. Brooke did a terrific rendition of "Love is a battlefield" that highlighted the intense and very sad lyrics instead of the tune. And I like Kristy Lee Cook, especially her "Faithfully," even if she seems a bit half-hearted at this point. As in politics this year, America's votes show that what seems to be written in stone isn't necessarily there at all. Carly Smithson is the judges' darling but I can't stand her one-tone yelling and, by the way, if she's so gosh darn wonderful, how come her CD (made under contract to Randy's production company, incidentally) sold a mere 360 copies?

Here are my current quick takes on The Twelve of 2008:
David Archuleta - wonderful voice, tho horrible airy breath; maybe too bland and wide-eyed innocent
Jason Castro - don't like his hair but c'est la vie; adore his voice and song choices
David Cook - hate his hair and scarves, love his voice and interpretations
Kristy Cook - adorable to look at, not bad country-ish singer
Chikezie Eze - way too full of himself and hate his voice
David Hernandez - the strip club alum, too pretty for me, not interesting voice to me
Michael Johns - the Aussie; nice to watch but booorrrriinng to me
Ramiele Malubuy - cute, seems phony-sweet, big voice sometimes, bad song choices often
Syesha Mercado - bright-eyed and cute but boring as heck to me
Amanda Overmyer - could've been terrific but wastes time focusing on being too-cool-for-this-competition
Carly Smithson - just too unremittingly screechy angry and loud, and uninteresting
Brooke White - very blonde, a bit too ditzy for my taste, gorgeous voice and terrific interpretations

I'm going to assume that Overmyer will burn out soon and both Johns and Smithson bore us all to smithereens. So I'll predict the final four is Archuleta, boy Cook, Castro and White.

Labels: a.i., a.i.7, reflections, silliness, tv

Here we go again. Another day with several states' primaries and all the cable networks rushing around trying to say something - anything - worth hearing. There's almost nothing to say until the results are in and one hopes the hype and excess verbiage won't be the determining factor. It's all very interesting this year, I must say.

Labels: 2008 election, people

It may mean that I'm just getting old and tired - although I hope not - but the change that I'm ready for, signalled perhaps by the election season - is an end to the whining and grousing, the endless complaining and worrying. Many of my favorite blogs seem to me to be mired in doom-saying and tongue-clucking about how terrible things will be if he or she or he gets elected. (Each blogger sees a different ghastly scenario depending on their pet dreadful candidate.)

Isn't it just remotely possible that there will be a change in the political and philosophical weather along with the change in the scene? I'm not one who sees Bush as the doer of all things evil, not at all, but I think new energy is possible with the changing of the guard, and it might be good. I suppose we may all be swept under by a marauding horde, be it religious or not, but isn't it just conceivable that things will improve? Yes, my money is going far less far, just like everyone else, and it's making me a little nuts. I made several more thousand dollars last year than previously yet I'm clearly unable to do house upkeep that wouldn't have been an issue at all a couple of years ago. I hate this feeling. But maybe things will get better.

Maybe I see glasses half full, not half empty, but either way it's possible that someone will come along and enable us to top off the glass again. Isn't it?

Labels: 2008 election, about me, modern culture, optimism, reflections